Why is it easy for real-world assets to fail on the chain? To put it simply, the problem isn't with the blockchain itself, but with the bunch of off-chain files, contracts, and certificates.
For example, a solution like a leading oracle can indeed handle price data, but they only deal with transmitting numbers. The real trouble is: transaction documents, asset certificates, ownership records—have these been tampered with? When were they changed? No one really knows.
IOTA has a concept in this area. Through a notarization mechanism, transaction documents, certificates, and asset records are directly inscribed onto the ledger. This way, you have a solid proof: at a certain point in time, the data looked like this, and whether it has been altered since then is clear at a glance.
Simply put, the circulation of RWA involves not just value, but also trust. And the foundation of trust is: this data has not been tampered with. IOTA's approach makes this verification process a default system behavior.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
19 Likes
Reward
19
10
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
GhostInTheChain
· 01-18 23:21
Those on-chain junk is the real black hole; no matter how awesome the oracle is, it can't save it.
View OriginalReply0
gas_fee_therapist
· 01-18 17:24
That pile of offline paper proofs is really a big pit; oracles can only handle the price part.
View OriginalReply0
CountdownToBroke
· 01-18 03:27
Speaking of which, those offline paper things are the real black holes.
View OriginalReply0
UncleLiquidation
· 01-16 03:52
Off-chain data is indeed the key to RWA, but the notarization mechanism still sounds somewhat idealistic.
View OriginalReply0
CryptoSurvivor
· 01-16 03:52
Ha, you're right. Off-chain data is the real black box.
View OriginalReply0
StakeTillRetire
· 01-16 03:52
Off-chain data is the real black box; oracles can't save it either.
View OriginalReply0
DaoGovernanceOfficer
· 01-16 03:47
ngl the whole "off-chain data integrity" angle is exactly what people keep glossing over when they shill RWA. empirically speaking, notarization sounds great on paper but—where's the actual audit trail? who's verifying the notary itself? 🤔
Reply0
NotGonnaMakeIt
· 01-16 03:47
Haha, that pile of off-chain files is just a ticking time bomb, and oracles can't save it either.
View OriginalReply0
ProposalDetective
· 01-16 03:44
At the end of the day, it's a trust issue. No one can solve the mess off-chain.
View OriginalReply0
RugPullSurvivor
· 01-16 03:35
Off-chain data is the real black hole; oracles can't save it either.
Why is it easy for real-world assets to fail on the chain? To put it simply, the problem isn't with the blockchain itself, but with the bunch of off-chain files, contracts, and certificates.
For example, a solution like a leading oracle can indeed handle price data, but they only deal with transmitting numbers. The real trouble is: transaction documents, asset certificates, ownership records—have these been tampered with? When were they changed? No one really knows.
IOTA has a concept in this area. Through a notarization mechanism, transaction documents, certificates, and asset records are directly inscribed onto the ledger. This way, you have a solid proof: at a certain point in time, the data looked like this, and whether it has been altered since then is clear at a glance.
Simply put, the circulation of RWA involves not just value, but also trust. And the foundation of trust is: this data has not been tampered with. IOTA's approach makes this verification process a default system behavior.